ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Impact of VI-RADS quality score on VI-RADS diagnostic performance for muscle invasion: the role of tumor size and reader experience.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the inter-reader agreement of the Vesical Imaging Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) quality scoring system and to assess its impact on the diagnostic performance for detecting muscle invasion. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 587 patients who underwent multiparametric bladder MRI before surgery. Three radiologists (two specialists and one non-genitourinary radiologist) independently assessed VI-RADS category and quality scores. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. Associations between image quality, VI-RADS categorization, and tumor characteristics were analyzed using multivariable models. Diagnostic performance for muscle invasion was assessed at predefined VI-RADS thresholds and compared across quality groups and tumor size subgroups.
resultsA total of 7/587 (1.2%), 284/587 (48.4%), and 296/587 (50.4%) scans were VI-RADS quality score 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Inter-reader agreement for the final quality score was substantial (k = 0.628-0.702). Higher VI-RADS quality scores were associated with increased T2-weighted image VI-RADS scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-7.43; p = 0.021). In tumors < 3 cm, particularly for the less experienced reader, higher image quality was associated with increased positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy at the VI-RADS ≥ 3 threshold (PPV: 51.0% vs 22.7%, p = 0.004; accuracy: 81.6% vs 71.7%, p = 0.023). No significant differences in diagnostic performance were observed across VI-RADS thresholds in tumors ≥ 3 cm.
conclusionThe VI-RADS quality scoring system demonstrated good inter-reader agreement. Optimal image quality improved diagnostic performance in small tumors and for the less experienced reader; however, because only one less experienced reader was included, this finding requires external validation. KEY POINTS: Question Does image quality, assessed by the VI-RADS quality score, influence diagnostic performance of VI-RADS for detecting muscle invasion in bladder cancer? Findings Higher image quality improved PPV and accuracy of VI-RADS, particularly in tumors < 3 cm and for the less experienced reader, while having limited impact in larger tumors. Clinical relevance Ensuring optimal MRI image quality enhances the reliability of VI-RADS interpretation, particularly in small tumors and non-specialized settings, and supports standardized imaging as a prerequisite for accurate bladder cancer staging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875622What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.